65 / 328
items which could be of considerable benefit to
members.
If, as in other places, our members from the
country were allowed even znd class travelling
expenses to and from Council Meetings it would
cost the Society another £500 per annum not to
mention hotel expenses or cost of meals which would
come to a further £400 approximately.
This expense is at present borne entirely by the
members
concerned who with
their Dublin
Colleagues gave in the past year alone over two
thousand hours of their time in attending meetings
of the Council or its committees and that takes no
account of time expended on travelling to and from
such meetings. I have referred to these items as of
interest only and I would like it to be clearly under
stood that there is no question of allowing such
expenses out of Society funds nor has such a request
been made by anyone.
How then can our budget be balanced in the future.
We have of course power to charge the Com
pensation Fund with a fair and reasonable amount
to cover the cost of administering the fund in
addition to all out of pocket expenses incurred
by the Society. Let us be clear, however, that so
far as our members are concerned this is no solution
of our problem and would simply mean transferring
money paid by our members from one pocket into
another.
There are two substantial items of expenditure
which are very much in the minds of our Council.
They are the payment of £530 to the Incorporated
Council of Law Reporting and the payment of £14
by each of our apprentices as stamp duties on his
indentures which goes to the Kings Inns.
The first of these charges is in my view an un
justifiable charge to which our Society should no
longer be subject for the following reason. When
we negotiated the terms of the Solicitors Act, 1954,
the Government agreed to remit stamp duties on our
practising certificates and part of the stamp duty on
our apprentices indentures. The Act also gave to
the Society the power to remove from the Roll or
to suspend solicitors whose conduct justified such
penalties without imposing on us the expense of
applications to the court.
In exchange for these
concessions the Society undertook to contribute the
sum of £5 30 per annum to the Incorporated Council
of Law Reporting. As you know, the Supreme
Court decision removed our right to deal with these
cases and we are now back where we started having
to incur in every case the expense of court proceed
ings.
In other words, the legal costs to which I
earlier referred of approximately £500 in addition
to the contribution of £530 to the Incorporated
Council of Law Reporting have to be met annually—
now an unjustifiable imposition which no one ever
intended and which should now be removed.
The second item is even worse—I consider it an
insult to our profession—I can see no reason let alone
justification why our apprentices should be called
upon to subsidise the Kings Inns—it is in my view
the bounden duty of the Bar to collect either from
their own students or their own members whatever
funds they require to meet the expense of educating
their students and paying for their own administra
tion. In the current year this charge alone will cost
our apprentices nearly £600.
If this money was
available to us for the education of our own
apprentices and we were relieved of the payment to
the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting it would
go a long way to assisting us in our present financial
problems.
Every president I have known has had a bee in
his bonnet about something or other connected with
our profession—I am no exception to the rule, and
in giving expression to it I am bound to inform you
that not only have the Council never even heard my
views, but for all I know they might disagree
violently with them.
You will already have realised from my earlier
remarks that I referred to two points upon which
our relationship with our friends at the Bar require
looking into—education and finance. May I suggest
with all due respect that these are only two of many
matters about which we and they ought to come
together for discussions.
It would be unfair of me to refer in any detail to
other matters about which I hold very decided views
before the Councils of our Society and the Bar have
had an opportunity of considering them." I will,
however, propose at our next Council meeting that
a special committee of our Council be formed to
consider and discuss with our friends at the Bar all
such matters.
I would only like to add in this
connection that a happy relationship continues to
prevail between our two professions which I hope
may long continue.
And now the sands of my presidential year are
sinking fast, another chapter in the history of our
Society draws to a close. It only remains for me to say
that it has been one of the most hectic and happy
years of my life. No words of mine can adequately
convey to the members of our profession my
thanks for the privilege I have enjoyed in serving
on our Council. Nor could I ever hope to repay my
Colleagues on the Council for the very great honour
they did me in electing me as your President.
My wife and I have represented the Society at
various Government receiptions and we have enjoyed
the hospitality of the Law Societies of England,
Scotland and Northern Ireland, we have visited
59